"Natural
Parents have NO RIGHTS.... ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....
"Natural
Parents' Rights now gone with my Homosexual Marriage
bill"
16.10 Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to
conform
to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal
BREACH OF TRUST"
FYI,
the ideas that the State assigns
Rights &
Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from
pre-war Nazi Germany. Under the British system
rights are not State-given, but God Given.
Buying into the Court's position that what
rights remain are Children's Rights, is buying into the same
position that "<Natural> Parents have no rights", and
Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.
In
"Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform"
McLellan warns that <Horrors!>
"Provincial
Legislatures may impose a presumption of Joint Custody...
and perpetuate the domination of men over women"
Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and
they will likely tell you it is
"Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say
"Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these
days".
This is completely FALSE. The Judges
are Agents of the Crown and they BY DEFINITION Judges are WITHOUT
CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever. Since
1649, only
PARLIAMENT has the Capacity to make Law.
British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was
only observed and documented by individuals sent out by the
newly Norman Crown after the
Norman Conquest of 1066 to observe and codify the
laws and customs of the various peoples of Britain..
This was done with a view to aggregate existing customs
which may vary across the land, into a unified body of
Laws. The Authority quoted by the Commoners in their
administration of
Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the
Bible and
principles of
Danelaw
The process of documentation took only a
couple of hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body
of Law which was historical, popular, and has served in the
intervening centuries as a Benchmark against which
Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".
It does NOT change.
Instead their position to promote the
"rights" of a "Parent" in the widest sense of the
word, making NO distinction between
NATURAL PARENTS and
wannaabe
Legal Parents. They have bowed to
University of
Victoria's assertion that the SCC's
Trociuk
Decision
"endorses a Heterosexual View of the Family and must be
ignored", legitimizing the ongoing
Child
Trafficking by the State which views
Canadian
children as State Property and merchandise for sale in
the lucrative Child
Adoption Market They refuse to be hampered by prior
obligations to that pesky Natural Parent who thinks they can
Veto an Adoption.
It appears that many
"Fathers Rights" groups commonly fall in with the United
Nations and Liberal
Irwin Cotler's assertion that the
Child's Right is to be protected, but the Natural Parent
has "NO RIGHTS",
making the State, not the Natural
Parents the Protector of the Child..
Without Cause or
Consent, no Child shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!
"In spite of credible revelations dating back to April 2002
about Bill Graham, a sex addicted bi-sexual sodomizing a 15
year old male prostitute named
Lawrence Metherel,
Paul Martin allowed Graham to remain
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - and eventually named
him to the portfolio of Minister of Defense.
"On Sept. 28/2005 a vote was held in Parliament to raise the
age of consent from 14 (one of the lowest age of consents in
the world) to 16 (an age which many still consider too low).
"Bill Graham, Paul Martin, and Anne McLellan, on Sept. 28th,
voted against raising the age of consent to 16
"The Family Courts
are <generally> a bunch of second rate hangers-on
... build each other's businesses through
referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining
Industry"
Habeas
Corpus : "literally, "you
may have the body". A Habeas
Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary
imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before
a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid,
the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When
the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned
indefinitely and without charge."
.....
Skeletons in the Closet, a film drawn from the dramatized lives
of families living with a protected
Pedophile and the mental
illness it may create when a loving, faithful, Victim keeps the
Secret. This is shockingly
common. The Secret is their Power -
BREAK IT!
(You would be well advised to stay away from the Public Servant.)
Connie Fogal: No North American Union (NAU)
Connie Fogal on The Alex Jones Show"Canadian Martial
Law"
Connie, we love you, but you're wrong on this
one....
And like many Americans,
Alex doesn't seem to know the
British Civil War against the
"Divine Right of
Kings" had already been fought and won in Britain a century
prior to the American Revolution. In this respect, the
Americans were going over old ground.
The Americans in their Revolution were sadly without
the purely Protestant view of ridding their country of Globalist
Rome. Instead the American Revolutionaries had along with
the Protestants, the Humanist and Masonic ideologies which were
in then in process of becoming "Illuminated" or "Luciferian".
What is ridiculous in the
Proroguing of Parliament, is that
Dion's "Three Stooges" are saying to Canadians that if ever
there is a minority Government, the minority Parties may
coalesce, pretend they are not separate Parties, but one
"Party", and displace the majority Party that WAS elected.....
totally BIZARRE!!!
The Governor General's role seems to have played out well here.
As the Queens Delegate as Constitutional Monarch, her role is to
assess the Trustee's performance in stewarding the Assets of the
Commonwealth, and if the Beneficiaries / Electorate is calling
for an Election, to
Dissolve Parliament.
It seemed pretty clear at the time
Dion's "Three Stooges" where demanding the Governor
General give THEM the reigns of power, and that Canadians did
NOT want another Election. None was called. For a
young and inexperienced party, Harper's
CPC has handled the Stooges' outrageous storming of
Parliament extremely well.
For many Canadians, it's a term they're not
familiar with but have come to know all too well in the last
week: proroguing Parliament. But just what does it mean?
Proroguing Parliament is a lot like rebooting your computer
after you've finished working. You're essentially starting with
a clean slate uncomplicated by all the programs you may have
been into before you hit that restart command. It's the
period between two sessions of a legislative body, although it
rarely happens just weeks after an election has been held.
It means all the MPs who were elected last October 14th will
remain in place, but any unpassed bills or motions - like the
controversial economic statement that started this mess - will
be non-existent. In effect, when the session starts again,
in this case in early January, it would be as though the
Conservatives never brought in the document and they get a
second chance at presenting a new one. Finance Minister
Jim Flaherty is expected to do just that, bringing down an early
budget.
Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages exercising democratic
rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or
reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.
